Ailuros said:
IE: The Geforce architecture (meaning every product based on the original Geforce 256 architecture) was far more successful than the Kyro architecture.
Then there's quite a difference between poor
execution and poor distribution and/or marketing.
Marketing plays the largest role in the execution of the product.
In what sense? Certainly in terms of numbers sold, but what of performance/cost for the purchaser?
Don't forget reliability. I have yet seen any reliable non conventional architecture in the desktop segment of the market.
Don't forget that the companies who launch these "non-traditional" products have a strict budget, I bet if given a good budget that Ati or nVIDIA could release a non conventional architecture that will whipe the floor with conventional architectures currently in the market.
Voodoo 5 Dual chip = late, low yeilds, low budget.
Kyro/2 = low budget = low end part
Ati Rage Fury MAXX (sp?) = Ati's past was plagued by unreliability, poor marketing, poor performance and poor expectations.
I don't believe the architectures themselves are to blame. A Kyro 2 with a T&L unit, couple of VS and some solid good performing drivers would be quite a steal.
It's usually sales/marketing that get products out the door and make products look good/bad.
It's the accounting dept that are responsible for finance.
I believe that those 2 areas are the main problems.
PR and budget.
Have I gone off track again?